About the Author:

Rather than the usual spiel 'about me' I decided to focus on how I felt about life as I grew up within it. Looking back, I made lots of bad as well as good choices. That said, through those choices, I grew, matured and developed as a human being. In that sense I feel privileged and honoured to be part of such a dynamic 'human family' of ups, downs and wild experiences. If you would like to understand more fully, the purpose of your own life, simply reflect on how you got to be the person you are today. There is not one single detail of your life that was not placed before you by none other than yourself!

I do not believe in 'nature or nurture' when reflecting on my own or other people's life experiences, its all about the choices we make. I own and take responsibility for every choice I made because I am a sovereign being - we all are sovereign beings defined by the choices we make. I try to keep this section of my books as short as possible because this type of 'navel gazing' is not good for the soul or the ego. What follows is mostly my experiences within typical life situations and how I came out of them, mostly unscathed.

I live in Wallasey, Merseyside NW England. We have 3 kids aged 16, 14 and 10 years old. We also have 2 cats who act as if they truly are Egyptian royalty. We try and live as simply as possible which means none of us are into into social media, three holidays a year and the latest i-this or i-that. The missus is very careful about the types of foods we consume and clothes we wear. She is very strict on the kids when it comes to consuming sweets, chocolates and biscuits. She ensures all the foods we consume do not contain artificial sweeteners, animal colourings or animal remains. Whenever possible, we eat affordable organic foods and as a family we follow a vegetarian diet. We stay away from hospitals, clinics, GPs etc and prefer using homeopathy and other non-allopathic methods of healing. That said, we do use hospitals and GPs in times of emergencies. We also stay well away from fluorides in our toothpaste and drink filtered water. We try and understand as much as we can about the origin of almost everything we buy, consume or come into contact with because that is the only way we can take decisions of consumption responsibly. 

As a by the by, have you noticed how difficult it has become in the past 20 years finding clothes and bedsheets that are 100% cotton? Some of the artificial petrol-based fabrics on the market leave a slight charge on the skin which is not good to our energy bodies. These artificial fabrics also change the ways in which we sweat and how our body sheds skin cells. One other thing to check before buying clothes and goods outside your own country is to try and find out if your item has been doused in anti-fungal or pesticide substances. Dousing of toxic chemicals mostly occur to imported items such as rattan and bamboo but it is always good to ask before you buy. On that same note, we ensure that all items of school uniform do not contain Teflon. If an item of cloting is advertised as 'non-crease' or 'non-iron', check the label, it probably contains Teflon. We do not like the idea of putting this substance in contact with a child's skin. Very small particles of Teflon will drop away from items of clothing to stick to a child's skin – not good. T 

Significantly and as a family, we do not have a TV license nor watch mainstream TV. Televisions, computer screens and almost anything related to the social media are best avoided because they are used as tools of persuasion to pacify, fragment and nullify the human spirit. Each second I spend in front of a screen watching movies or typing out articles, I am aware of a silent assault on my consciousness. I delve into these issues in much greater detail (see my Blog Page) and offer a way in which to protect ourselves as we surf the Internet. For many eyes reading this, I have triggered ancient memories? Many of us have been through all this before in other realms. The ancient Sirians call these days, the 'desert days'. I did say that this site is all about the nature of our reality and indeed, the greatest love story rarely told. We are so much bigger than we were ever told or ever imagined - Life itself, like us, is vast and never-ending. I bring all of this together in my latest book, 'All About the Wonderful You.

My current interests:

I facilitate meditation spaces, offer spiritual workshops and also counsel those undergoing spiritual emergence or spiritual emergency. My hobbies include amateur radio which enables me to understand something of the concepts of electricity, magnetism, sound, frequency, vibration and resonance from a systems-wide perspective.  

Education:

I entered Higher Education as a mature student. Prior to that I did many labouring jobs on building sites, worked as a car mechanic and managed to happily survive lots of numbingly-boring factory jobs. For the most part I just got on with it but the pay was always lousy and I learnt a lot about myself and others.  I left Higher Education with a PhD and MSc. from Imperial College, a BSc. (Hons) from Thames Polytechnic /University of Greenwich and a Cert. Ed. Post-16 Teaching qualification from Avery Hill, Eltham South London. I taught mostly chemistry from GCSE to A-Level and the general sciences. I found teaching exhausting and it was not what I expected. I did not stay around long enough to make a difference but in my later years and once again, I am a teacher of sorts. This time around, I teach what I believe is Truth and I do not have to make any compromises to anyone on how I frame, define and understand my subject material or the world around me. 

PhD studies: The Environmental Characterisation of Particulate-Associated Radioactivity Deposited Close to the Sellafield Works, (1997)

I have been involved in radioactive aerosol deposition, transport and environmental fate studies for what seems forever. My PhD research validated a key environmental variable used in Gaussian, atmospheric dispersion models; the concept of dry particle deposition velocity.

My research suggests this model parameter as it is currently used within the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site is plain wrong. In order to test out the assumptions behind the concept of dry particle deposition velocity, I used a variety of size-selective air samplers to quantify particle Vg for several radioactive pollutants, namely plutonium, americium and curium and radio-caesium. I found airborne particles containing extremely elevated levels of radioactivity. I defined these particles as 'hot particles'.  I collected many of these particles on my inverted Frisbee deposition collectors i.e.  these particles were airborne.

Radiochemical analyses and counting  were carried out at the Westlakes Research Institute, (Moor Row Cumbria). My fieldwork was carried out in the environs of the BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels Ltd) nuclear reprocessing plant (especially close to the old Windscale Piles) and as close to the cooling rods ponds that I dared. As an aside, it was surreal taking soil and air samples as a research student on a nuclear site with armed police and high fences amidst all that security!

My PhD thesis is not available from the British Library and it can only be obtained on a 'lend only basis' from the Imperial College library. There is a story behind this but I was not told about the limited dissemination of my PhD thesis until many years after I graduated in 1997. The usual process to follow when completing a PhD degree is (a) write it up, (b) defend its contents at viva-voce, (c) do any corrections and if successful, (d) you are awarded your doctorate.  As part of the research dissemination process, you make about five copies of your thesis and 2-3 copies are lodged at the British Library. It is here that the dissemination of your thesis is made possible within the academic and scientific communities, both locally and globally.  I was awarded my doctorate in 1997 yet my thesis was restricted to the Imperial College library only, there was no external dissemination and worst of all, I was not told the reasons why?

Science is objective - right?

I think the contents of my thesis were too explosive for those at the top of Sellafield. That is the sole reason why the contents of my research were not properly disseminated via the British Library. There are two issues related to my research, (a) the presence of airborne particles characterised by extremely high levels of alpha and gamma emitters and (b) the presence of these particles in the derivation of dry particle deposition velocity. Thirdly, and by default, the atmospheric dispersion and modelling of all pollutants from Sellafield are wrongly characterised - something is amiss somewhere? 

I was not even aware that my dissemination had been restricted until many years later. I only found out when I attempted to send a link of my thesis to a Russian scientist who was also involved in this type of scientific research! He emailed and asked for a personal copy of my work because the British Library did not stock my thesis. Science is objective right? Why would they (BNFL and Imperial College) sequester and limit the dissemination of my thesis?

I understood that what I found within the environs i.e. inside the Sellafield plant would be controversial. Based on my real world data, it appears there are several fugitive on-site emissions sporadically puffing radioactivity to the near surface environment. In all honesty and before finalising my PhD write-up, I had to fight to keep as much of this data within my thesis as possible. I received little or no help from my Imperial College supervisor. In brief, I found both aged and recent radioactive 'hot' particles having activity signatures from the atomic bomb-making era of Windscale and also from recent day emissions spread over much of the Sellafield plant. The sole purpose of my research was to validate the concept of dry particle deposition velocity, (Vg) having a value of 1E-03 metres per second for commonly stack-discharged radionuclides. This value of particulate deposition is used by BNFL and its regulators when modelling the safety of stack-released atmospheric discharges of site radioactivity.

My work consistently showed that the value of Vg for stack-released radioactivity is wrong by at least two orders of magnitude. Theoretically, the parameters for atmospheric dispersion modelling should be changed to reflect what I determined for the deposition of radio-caesium and actinides such as plutonium, americium and curium. In other words, the air concentrations of many radionuclides determined within the Sellafield site and out to about 2 km away from the plant are higher than the modelled values. Conversely, the modelled values of air concentration of stack-discharged radioactivity at least 10km from the site are over-stated. If my research is representative of what has gone on within the environs of the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant for the past 40 years or so, it has biological safety implications for those working within the plant and those living within 2km of the plant.   My experiences at the coal-face of Science clearly told me that Science, aka 'big science' is a social construct with very little to do with the Scientific Method.

Click here to download a copy of my PhD thesis.

MSc studies: Sea-to-Air-To-Land Transfer of Radionuclides - Materials and Methodology of Environmental Air Sampling (1991)

During my Masters, I carried out wind tunnel experiments at the Silwood Park, Imperial College field station located near Ascot. I was interested in investigating the capture efficiencies of different textile cloths i.e. muslin, cotton and other types that could be used as passive air samplers to environmental particulates. The purpose of these wind tunnel experiments was to characterise cloth capture efficiencies to mono-disperse particle size ranges from 1um to about 20 um. Based on these data, I selected 3 cloths to function as 'passive air samplers' in field environments. Back in the day, the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant used passive air samplers sited around the perimeter fence as part of their environmental monitoring procedures. When I finished my Silwood Park wind tunnel experiments I took these different cloths to a site along the Cumbrian coast not far from Sellafield to determine the effects of what is called, Sea-to-Air-Land Transfer.

Simply put, radioactivity discharged to the Irish Sea becomes enriched in spume which is the white stuff on the surface of the sea. Spume is made up of mostly organic materials which are ejected from the surface of the sea and advected back to land via wind. Radioactive aerosols and small particulates then deposit to inland soils and surfaces etc. The composition of this marine input to the natural environment is especially rich in the actinides, plutonium, americium and curium. My study site was an inland  transect of beach at Saint Bees, Cumbria. The results of my passive air sampling results do not show a simple correlation between distance from the beach and increasing levels of radioactivity. This is due to the fact that there are several inputs of radioactivity to this area including (a) Sellafield atmospheric discharges and (b) inputs of radio-caesium deposited from the Chernobyl-cloud explosion back in 1986. Click here for more info.

Bachelor of Science, (Honours): The Speciation Pattern of Lead in Street Dusts & Soils in the Vicinity of Two London Schools, (1990)

My final year research project determined the speciation of lead compounds collected in the playgrounds and classrooms of two London schools primarily using AAS (atomic absorption spectrometry). This was at a time when tetra-ethyl-lead (TEL) was used as an anti-knock agent in petrol engines. Interestingly, I found roughly the same aged speciation pattern of lead both inside and outside the school. This was consistent with other studies of this type that show that environmental pollutants collected inside and outside a building have similar  speciation and metal concentrations. The contents of this work formed the first of my peer review research papers that was published in Environment international, Vol. 18 pp. 153 - 162 (1992).

My time at Thames Polytechnic (later name-changed to the University of Greenwich) represents the best memories of my student life. It is here that I discovered a talent in the labs because I found I could cope with the demands of field work and its subsequent analyses. I must have prepared and analysed hundreds and hundreds of environmental samples under the watchful guidance of my lab-guru, Matthew Ma. The tutors were also amazingly resourceful and good at their jobs and the broad reach and depth of subjects taught, put me in good stead to tackle the mostly, atmospheric physics /radiochemistry type research I pursued for my Masters, and PhD. Click here for more info on this project.

Back in the real world following graduation:

 My first job after graduating with a PhD was back into garage work for a year, (long story). I then joined the Scientific Civil Service aka. MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food) in 1999.  In 2000 (following MAFF's poor response to the foot and mouth incident), the department I was working in, (Radiological Protection) were transferred en-masse to the newly opened Food Standards Agency (FSA) based in Holborn, Central London. During my time at the FSA, I worked in a variety of differing scientific roles and each one gave me a set of life-skills which enabled me to get a clearer picture of the nuanced relationship between public interest, needs of industry and regulatory governance. Once again, I was blessed in working with an awful lot of good, intelligent and knowledgeable colleagues who helped me understand my craft and 'fit in' as a scientist working in the Civil Service. I did not easily fit into this role simply because I had a different perspective to those around me. I learnt the art of objectivity and became mostly but not always, evidence-driven. At some stage of my career, I found a reasonable  life/work balance I could live with.

Government regulatory departments work as slow as dinosaurs when responding to newly surfaced scientific data or evidence. One example of this is the 'recent' discovery that the pesticide glyphosphate is having a bad effect on the fecundity of fauna and flora, especially our very important pollinators, bees. Governments and their regulatory departments try and steer clear of anything that says "sorry guys and girls, we were wrong about this".  Lest we forget, doctors and physicians advertised cigarettes as safe in the 1950s, government and industry sanctioned the use of DDT as safe and the use of the drug thalidomide, to pregnant women. In the not-too-distant future, the toxicity of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines will come under similar scrutiny. This time around, those responsible for bringing these substances into use, will be alive and culpable for their motives, decisions and actions.

I have about 25 years of experience as an environmental scientist with specialisms in, aerosol science, meteorology, atmospheric science, radiochemistry, radioactive 'hot' particle characterisation, soil chemistry, predictive modelling (Monte Carlo), atmospheric dispersion modelling (Gaussian) and heavy metal speciation studies. 

Looking back on my life it is clear my path and purpose was to simply do what I was asked to do and report back to the people who employed me to carry out their research objectives. It is here that I found how government, industry and especially, the European Union really works in issues related to public good. Much of what I observed was not pretty yet I was a part of it. Through my efforts I sustained it yet, I always strived to ask questions, many dare not utter. The whole thing became a balancing act because I needed to work to earn money whilst at the same time, doing my best to ensure 'the science' is followed regardless of implications to governments or industry.

I made a very simple choice within myself at an early stage of my life. I could (a) follow the herd, do as I was told, do not rock the boat and be well paid for it or (b) follow the science and stay objective. I am so glad I chose the latter choice (b) all those years ago.

This guy is one of my heroes and his thoughts formed part of my History and Philosophy of Science module I carried out during my first degree with Thames Polytechnic in 1989. Thomas Kuhn wrote the paradigm-breaking treatise on the relationship between Science & Society many years ago called: 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. It was published in 1962 by the University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn argued that Science is a social process in which different theorists fight for supremacy in who is right. An example of this is the displacement of the continental drift theory by the plate tectonics hypothesis. The latter hypothesis eventually explained much more fully, what was really going on and it attained 'theory' status. Kuhn called these types of events, "paradigm shifts". He cautioned, however, that before we get to a paradigm shift, there is much hickory-pokey, mud-slinging, manipulation of events by those proponents of the prevailing theory. We bear witness to all of Kuhn's scientific observations in the issue of climate change. Powerful social actors are attempting to bludgeon carbon dioxide as the villain in 'global warming/climate change'. Proponents of climate change offer little scientific data to support their hypothesis and rely on the fact that most members of the public do not really understand the process of the Scientific Method. Politicians and their paid-for scientists rely on 'consensus' views over objective scientific data. The whole issue of environmental action has become weaponised in a particularly weird fashion. In other words, politicians, industry and their academics can build whatever scenario they want us to believe. They can push this boat quite far because they control so many aspects of our lives. For many, climate change is real and weaponised via apocalyptic scenarios of doom, gloom and destruction. The real issue for those pushing this agenda is they do not have a robust scientific hypothesis of the cause and effect of climate change. If we unpack a few strands of their argument, everything falls apart.

Climate Change is based on One Graph

I give you just one example of a big climate science scam you can check out yourself. The rationale behind global warming was laid out in the first IPCC document in the early 1990s. The centre-piece of this document was a graph presented by Professor Mann of Penn State University. It was called the 'Hockey-Stick' graph which purports to show that climate temperature increased with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The 'fly in the ointment' were dated showing that levels of carbon dioxide were much higher in Medieval times. Basically, the 'hockey-stick' graph wiped out the high levels of carbon dioxide in the Medieval Period and accentuated climate change rise from the mid-1800s onwards. According to Professor Mann, as population numbers and economic activities increase, levels of carbon dioxide also increase, leading to 'global warming'. Naturally, this graph drew the ire of many climate scientists and academics. Proper Science simply says 'prove it' and in order to do that you must have data and be open to challenge.

Professor Mann's so-called 'Hockey Stick' data was challenged by another scientist and it led to a court case. The outcome of this court case was not widely disseminated or talked about in the mainstream media in any great detail for obvious reasons. You can read about the great deception at the link below and come to your own conclusions, The link is here: https://ecology.news/2019-08-28-court-decision-slapped-down-michael-mann-fake-global-warming.html

What Is Science?

Proper science is adversarial and based on hypothesis and falsification of that hypothesis. Science has nothing to do with consensus of any shape or form. Therefore, consensus amongst anyone is irrelevant, what matters is objective data and observation. Simply put, climate science is quack science because it bases its reasoning within its own logic. This type of 'science' will only mention phenomena which supports its own view. In effect, it becomes self-referential. I call this 'quack science'. Quack science is a construct of reality carried out by powerful social actors as part of an agenda. Francis Bacon and Descartes must be having a wry smile at all of this!! If you are not convinced by any of this, research the scientific scandal, 'climategate' carried out at the University of East Anglia around the same period.

We now live in the era of 'Big Science' i.e. science defined and funded by politicians and industry. We can no longer blindly follow the science, if we ever did. When any piece of research is published, the first question to ask is who commissioned it and which university or research centre carried this work out. The simple fact that someone has lots of letters after their name, wears a white coat and works in a lab does not equate to someone searching for truth or its cause and effect. There are thousands of scientists who simply follow what they have been told to. Thomas Kuhn calls this phase of science, "Normal Science" and its workers look inwards within its own logic to explain everything that needs to be understood. Even when something pops up within their data which is totally unexpected, they explain it away as an 'outlier' or an odd unexplainable artifact! In essence, scientists are flesh and blood the same as us. We all expect the world to be a certain way and for 99.9% of the time, life shows up exactly the way we expect it to be. In other words, you can say that all swans are white until the moment when a flock of black swans appear. Ultimately that is the difference in method between consensus science and proper adversarial science.

The adversarial nature of the Scientific methods tells you to disprove your own hypothesis and not to look for data that supports your own hypothesis. Consensus science simply supports its own view of what is happening, which is why consensus science is quack, dead-end science. In 2023 we have the BBC and the mainstream media telling us that extreme weather events such as forest fires are a direct result of climate change!!

Governments and industry spend trillions of dollars, euros, yen and pounds to propagate a particular view or consensus of reality. Question: is climate change a threat to mankind or, are changes in climate cyclical and natural phenomena? Those who follow consensus climate-change science are hugely rewarded with more research grants, more academic prestige and more societal power to define 'reality'. That's the end and short of it for most folks. The work behind non-ionising radiation for example is also deeply flawed and biased - it is nothing more than quack 'consensus science'. I expand on this issue in much greater detail here.

I end this 'all about me' with a propaganda quiff I happened across on a BBC article on their website in 2023, which asks the question:

"How is sign language adapting to climate change?"

The ethos behind this article is to willingly accept that climate change is real and a direct threat to mankind. In essence, it is more to do with the psychology of winning the hearts and minds of large groups of people rather than an attempt to discuss 'what on earth is going on'. The unspoken premise of the BBC is to covertly state we must do something about climate change and it is in these types of situations that they also inject the narrative consensus "that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real". That is the BBC and mainstream perspective which also includes organisations such as the WHO, EU, national politicians and global environmental groups. They desperately want to imprint on the human collective consciousness that we are all doomed if we do nothing about climate change.

We have all been here before and think back to the early COVID-19 days and the same actors all sing from the same hymn sheet that "vaccines are safe, roll your arm out, get your shot and stay in your bedroom". It is nothing more than psychology ushering in mind control. My final thought on climate change is this: in 2023 after 35 years of climate change psychology and hysteria, the Green Party in the UK has only one MP. If the scientific evidence is so overwhelming and serious, surely the voters would be behind Miss Lucas' party? The UK Green Party, including Greenpeace & Friends of the Earth were consumed and subliminated into the Deep State many moons ago!

Common sense trumps 'consensus science'.

Most ordinary people understand the differences between changes in weather and climate. Perhaps its time for us mere mortals to push back on the so-called 'consensus' view of reality. If these real-life doomsters had their way, they would limit the global number of farm animals for food production, reduce NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilisers) use within agriculture, decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, limit the industrial GDP, (gross domestic product) of entire countries, turn agricultural land back to the 'wild', impose 'clean air zones' across all major urban conurbations, shame car users who use their cars, and/or discourage car use by increasing cycle and bus lanes and increasing taxes ad nauseum.

All of that is predicated on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is causing climate change and the earth is somehow 'heating up'. As an environmental scientist I think the hypothesis is flawed because throughout our history, levels of CO2 has fluctuated wildly and all these inputs and feedbacks are perfectly natural and part of nature. In any event, water vapour has a much higher potential for atmospheric warming than CO2. The Medieval Warming Period saw much higher levels of CO2 than we measure today yet we are still around.

Do I look to Hollywood movie stars to be told that global warming is real? Errr, no. Do I listen to mainstream politicians and TV/radio presenters who try to convince me that global warming is real? Errr, no. Do I think the BBC and the mainstream media have a fixation in getting us to believe that we should be very scared of climate change? Most definitely, yes. I rarely see any evidence of global warming and what I see in their climate change headlines are natural fluctuations in temperatures caused by El Nino, El Nina overlain by the dynamics of the Gulf and Jet Streams. I associate higher levels of CO2 in previous times as very good for plants and the fauna that predate these food stores. Plants love high levels of CO2 and the world becomes verdant, beautiful and bountiful because of it.

Global warming/climate change is nothing more than a social construct penned by powerful social actors in many disguises to get us to accept their vision of reality via their consensus quack science. If we allow them any further opportunity to shape our world, they will severely limit our population numbers to enhance their control over every facet of our existence.

The above image illustrates how one of the most powerful social players in this climate change debacle i.e. the mainstream media operates. For me, its all psychology, winning hearts and minds on 'climate change'. I think it's all bollocks and part of an agenda of control. What really matters though is what you think is actually happening. Slowly and step by step, governments around the world are strangling humanity on the basis of 'saving the planet'. Surely, everyone can see the contradictions within modern politics? Many countries wage eologically-damaging wars of conquest and occupation abroad whilst subjecting their own citizens to 20 mph speed restrictions. Eco-politicians travel by plane rather than sails....the list of environmental madness by these actors is endless.

The unspoken secret is this, what we believe shows up in our reality. If we believe we are in mortal danger if we do not consent to the jab of an unproven mRNA vaccine(s) or that climate change is a real threat, they will be unable to 'fix' things for us. Generally speaking, the 'fix' is very bad for us, but that is what they want us to believe. At the end of the day, it is your choice to believe or not. Each choice we make has implications for the quality and happiness of our lives. The point is to choose wisely based on as much evidence as you can muster. I question everything and trust nothing that comes out of the mouths of politicians and scientists. I seek news outside as well as inside the mainstream media. I assess the evidence, how it was gathered and who actually propagates these messages. As usual, there is an awful lot going on that is never spoken about. If truth be told, it has been like this since the advent of the first printing press and print barons. Climate Change and indeed, COVID-19 are political constructs that can be stopped by us saying NO and not complying.